professional learning communities and student performanceprofessional learning communities and...
Post on 29-Jul-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Professional Learning Communities and Student Performance
An Investigation at River Heights Elementary
by
Kristin Hildebrandt
A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Master of Science Degree
III
Education
Approved: 2 Semester Credits
James Lehmann
The Graduate School
University of Wisconsin-Stout
July, 2011
2
The Graduate School
University of Wisconsin Stout
Menomonie, WI
Author: Hildebrandt, Kristin L.
Title: Professional Learning Communities and Student Performance
An Investigation at River Heights Elementary
Graduate Degree/Major: MS Education
Research Advisor: Jim Lehmann, Ph.D.
Month/Year: July, 2011
Number of Pages: 40
Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th
edition
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if the implementation of professional
learning communities would have an effect on improving student achieve in reading.
This study includes data collected from 2008 to 2011 from approximately 75 students in
the form of a graduated data track. Student running record scores from their kindergarten
year before professional learning communities were in place to the end of their first grade
school year when they were established were compared. Results were gathered,
compared, and totaled to determine if there was a significant increase, decrease, or if
student test scores stayed the same after the implementation of professional learning
communities. While the achievement levels of beginning, developing, and proficient had
a minimal increase in student performance levels, the most significant increase was
3
students progressing to the advanced proficient achievement level, making the
implementation successful.
4
The Graduate School
University of Wisconsin Stout
Menomonie, WI
I would like to thank my advising professor Dr. James Lehmann for the guidance
and valuable advice he provided me during the process of writing this paper. I would
also like to thank my father for his encouragement and support in writing this thesis
paper. Dad, I never could have done this with out your loving guidance. Thank you
mom for entertaining my children when I needed to work on my thesis paper and taking
over my role as a mother, cooking meals for my family. I cannot go with out thanking
my husband and three amazing children. I could not have completed this master program
and thesis paper if it weren’t for the love and support of my husband. He was an endless
source encouragement for me. My three children have had to wait for their mom to finish
her homework countless times. They have been incredibly patient and loving throughout
this process. They were my inspiration and my cheerleaders. Finally, I would like to
thank my sister for believing in me and encouraging me to go on when I felt frustrated.
To all the family I have thanked, I love you all dearly.
5
Table of Contents
.................................................................................................................................................... Page
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................2
Chapter I: Introduction ....................................................................................................................7
Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................................9
Purpose of the Study ...........................................................................................................9
Definition of Terms...........................................................................................................10
Methodology .....................................................................................................................11
Chapter II: Literature Review ........................................................................................................12
Chapter III: Methodology ..............................................................................................................21
Subject Selection and Description ....................................................................................21
Instrumentation .................................................................................................................22
Data Collection Procedures ...............................................................................................24
Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................25
Limitations ........................................................................................................................26
Chapter IV: Results ........................................................................................................................27
Item Analysis ....................................................................................................................27
Chapter V: Discussion ...................................................................................................................30
Limitations ........................................................................................................................31
Conclusions .......................................................................................................................31
Recommendations .............................................................................................................32
References ......................................................................................................................................33
Appendix A: Year End Assessment scores for Experimental and Control Group .......................35
6
Appendix B: Running Record Assessment Tool ...........................................................................37
7
Chapter: 1 Introduction
Schools are continuously under pressure to achieve measurable results of student
outcomes. In most cases, schools are striving to improve student learning and design a high
quality curricular experience for all students. However, the multiplicity of variables in education
makes school transformation a difficult process. Over time schools have sought professional
development training for teachers, purchased quality curriculum, added student centered
programming before and after school, and enhanced classrooms with technology. Yet student
test scores show many schools are not improving, and in some cases student test scores are
deteriorating.
Like many schools across the nation River Heights Elementary in Menomonie,
Wisconsin was in search of school improvement. River Heights is a Title 1 school that services
379 children in kindergarten through fifth grade. Within our student population 64.6% are
economically disadvantaged, 14.1% are students with a disability, and over 10% are English
language learners. River Heights has been fortunate to be part of a Wisconsin education grant
targeting the reformation of schools with high populations of low-income students. The Student
Achievement Guarantee in Education program (SAGE) provides funding that supports extra
teaching staff in kindergarten through third grade, keeping classroom populations lower than 18.
River Heights has a dedicated staff that is committed to the students they serve. In 2008 the staff
at River Heights Elementary was actively seeking a school model that would facilitate school
improvement. The pursuits for school transformation lead the staff at River Heights to discover
professional learning communities.
Research regarding education shows schools that schools sharing a common vision and
are committed to working together as a community, are improving student performance. “When
8
we look at the research on improving schools over a long period of time and examine what the
keys to school improvement are, invariably it boils down to the ability of the people within the
school to function as a professional learning community” (DuFour, DuFour & Eaker, as cited in
Lunenburg ,2010, p.1). Professional learning communities have been around for more than
thirty years. Servais et al., as cited in Spanneut (2010) stated “professional learning communities
have been recognized and used as a viable means for consciously placing curriculum, teaching,
learning, and achievement at the center of schools” (p. 100-101).
Recently River Heights Elementary explored the practice of professional learning
communities. The school began implementing professional learning communities in the fall of
2009 and is currently committed to the practice with all grade levels from kindergarten through
fifth grade participating in professional learning communities. Each professional learning
community is comprised of a number of different educators such as: general education, para-
educators, guidance staff, speech and language teachers, and special education staff.
Additionally, it is not uncommon for before and after school club coordinators to sit in on
professional learning community meetings to learn the needs of the students in their programs
and carry over the day’s learning into their programming. The professional learning
communities meet for one hour each week, and for an afternoon once a month during district
early release days that are designated for professional development. Since the implementation of
professional learning communities in 2009 the River Heights staff has received over 30 hours of
professional development in the area of professional learning communities.
9
Statement of the Problem
The 2008 Wisconsin Concepts and Knowledge Exam (WKCE) test scores showed
that River Heights students were not achieving the minimal expectations on the reading
standards portion of the test. The standard teaching practices were not helping students
achieve expected reading benchmarks. Professional learning community schools may
provide an intervention through a collaborative teaching practice that could achieve
significant improvement in the area of student reading performance. Research that has
already been conducted on Professional Learning Communities and the impact the
practice had in other schools was utilized in this study.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to research professional learning communities in
practice at River Heights Elementary and their potential effect on improving student’s
scores regarding reading. This study includes data collected from 2009 to 2011 from
approximately 75 students. This is a graduated data track that followed student’s running
record scores from the end of their kindergarten year to the end of their second grade
school year. Measuring student progress through running record test scores over a period
of time beginning before professional learning communities were in place and ending
after they are established may perhaps show that a school working as a cohesive unit
towards change and improvement could advance student learning and performance. The
findings of the study will be used to encourage the practice of professional learning
communities at other schools within the School District of the Menomonie Area.
10
Definition of Terms
Bench Mark Targets. Student learning goals that are typically established by a
school district’s or a state’s standards.
Common Formative Assessment. Assessment used on an ongoing basis to
monitor individual student learning and to impact instructional practice so that all
students master intended outcomes (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker & Karhanek 2004, p. 24).
Intervention. A prescribed lesson that accommodates an individual child’s
academic needs.
Professional Learning Community. A professional learning community is
educators committed to working collaboratively in an ongoing process of collective
inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the students they serve (Dufour,
Dufour & Eaker, 2008, p. 15).
Running Record. A tool for coding, scoring, and analyzing a child’s precise
reading behaviors. This is document of a child’s actual reading of text, it provides both
quantitative and qualitative information (Fountas & Pinnell 1996, p. 89).
Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE). The state of Wisconsin’s
standardized test that is given yearly to students third grade through eighth grade.
Assumptions and Limitations
An assumption is that the data collected at River Heights Elementary is valid and
reliable. River Heights has a very transient population with students moving in and out
of the school, this factor may affect data results. This population of students could distort
running record test data. As a result of teacher’s individual preferences, not all students
11
experienced the professional learning community process. Therefore not all grade levels
devoted their professional learning community work to improving reading scores.
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to determine if the practice of professional learning
communities at River Heights Elementary had an effect on student running record scores.
Classroom teachers performed the monthly running record assessments. A graduated
data track followed students’ running record scores from the end of their kindergarten
year to the end of their first grade school year was used. A comparison of data from the
experimental group and the control group will be presented within this study. This data
was collected from the school years 2009 through 2011.
12
Chapter II: Literature Review
This chapter will review literature in relation to the practice of professional learning
communities (PLC) in elementary schools as well as increase the understanding of how a
professional learning community functions within a school. The review of literature will also
discuss the roles of professional learning community members, the design and function of
weekly professional learning community meetings, common assessment methodology and
teacher benefits from the PLC. In addition, collective responsibility and common goals will be
reviewed since they are two of the primary factors of effective professional learning
communities.
Professional Learning Communities
The evolution of the educational professional learning community (PLC) began within
the business community. “The term ‘learning community’ began to enter the educational
vernacular broadly in the early 1990s following the publication of Peter Senge’s book The Fifth
Element” (Hamos et al., 2009, p. 14). This proposed radical restructuring of business
management strategies transformed corporations into learning organizations that shared a vision
among employees and management, sharing vision for change through group discussions of
goals and problems. The term was modified to ‘learning communities’ as educational
practitioners and researchers began to create a collection of literature on this topic (Senge, as
cited in Hamos et al., 2009, p. 14). Professional learning communities have become an intensive
approach to school improvement.
According to DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker, (2008) a professional learning community, is
educators committed to working collaboratively in an ongoing process of collective inquiry and
action research to achieve better results for the students they serve. Professional learning
13
communities (PLC) function under the assumption that to improve learning for all students;
educators must meet on a regular basis and engage in conversation about learning issues. “If
shared purpose, vision, collective commitments, and goals constitute the foundation of a PLC,
then the collaborative team is the fundamental building block of the organization. A PLC is
composed of a collaborative team whose members work interdependently to achieve common
goals- goals linked to the purpose of learning for all- for which members are held mutually
accountable” (DuFour, DuFour & Eaker, 2008, p. 15). Mellard and Johnson (2008) concurred
with the findings of DuFour, DuFour and Eaker, and affirmed that a PLC holds the promise of
marked improvements in student achievement with quick identification of unproductive teaching
methods, and the prospect of having timely professional development available to staff.
Out of Isolation and into Professional Learning Communities
All levels within an educational system in a school district concerned with school
improvement work together to create common goals and meaningful interventions for all
abilities of children. This collaborative, systematic response provides prevention,
intervention, and acceleration to answer two essential professional learning community
question: “How will we respond when students do not learn?” and “How will we respond
when students have already learned the essential knowledge and skills?” (Erkens et al.,
2008, p. 180).
Unfortunately, this is not the case in some schools. In the past many educators,
for fear of being judged negatively by peers, kept their teaching methods and curricular
planning private, and chose to work in seclusion. Because of these established
expectations, in many schools teachers continue to practice this approach, attempting to
meet the needs of their students with little or no collaboration with peers. Not only do
14
students benefit from the systematic support of a professional learning community
approach, but teachers do as well. “An army of adults is there to help the teacher help the
student. The teacher is not alone” Wong et al, as cited in Hamos et al., (2009) noted that
isolation is the common thread and complaint among new teachers in U.S. schools (p.
14). Educators are dealing with a vast spectrum of learners, possibly making it difficult
to achieve improved academic performance for all students. Even though most teachers
are very capable of helping their students achieve benchmark goals, many are working in
situations beyond their control. Some of these teachers are in classrooms with large class
sizes working with students with various academic and social needs. With the vast
amount of curricular resources, district, and state standards it can be difficult for a teacher
to decide what is relevant to teach. Erkens et al., (2008) suggested even teachers with a
great deal of experience have a difficult time choosing from among all the possible
curricula written for their grade level or subject area. Furthermore, when considering
new teachers it is even more difficult to distinguish essential content. Teachers working
alone may find it challenging to utilize student data to change and improve curriculum.
These teachers “are still teaching in the dark without using data hoping to hit but often
missing their critical target: high performance for all students” (Erkens et al., 2008, p.
137). As aforementioned, many teachers have to learn to teach in seclusion. This lack of
collaboration can lead to minimal academic growth for students and a high level of
frustration for teachers.
Schools cannot achieve the essential purpose of learning for all if educators work in
seclusion. According to Hammond & McLaughlin, as cited in Lieberman & Pointer Mace,
(2009) it has become clearer that teachers learn in communities that are long term and
15
collaborative, that necessitate enabling polices that are shaped by the people who are involved in
routines of schools and have an investment in reform (p. 459). Evidence clearly suggests that
school administrators and teachers must build a collaborative philosophy in which they work
together and assume collective responsibility for the learning of all students (DuFour, DuFour, &
Eaker, 2008). The Harvard Business School’s publication: The Wisdom of Teams, (1993) further
corroborates the notion of collective responsibility. Katzenbach and Smith did extensive
qualitative research to determine the characteristics of high performing teams. They found
mutual accountability is a key factor. “No group ever becomes a team until it can hold itself
accountable as a team” (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, p. 64). Their research reframed the idea of
collective responsibility as mutual team accountability. They also corroborated the importance
of having common goals. “The best teams invest a tremendous amount of time and effort
exploring, shaping and agreeing on a purpose that belongs to them both collectively and
individually.” (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, p. 50). In other words, two key competencies of the
high performing teams Katzenbach and Smith outline in business and industry mirror the
competencies of professional learning communities: collective responsibility and common goals.
When teachers and administrators are guided by collective commitments that are widely
understood and honored by all, each member recognizes the important role he or she can play in
shaping the success of a school or district. “There is ample evidence that effective classroom
and school management support high academic performance in students” (Howell, Patton &
Deiotte, 2008, p. 70). When teachers working in a professional learning community are united in
a common endeavor, and are contributing to creating a better future for their schools and
districts, they are far more likely to see their work as rewarding contrary to the isolated teachers
16
and principals whose interests may not extend beyond their individual classrooms or schools
(DuFour, DuFour & Eaker, 2008).
The Roles of Professional Learning Community Members
Based on the work by DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Many (2006), four basic questions are
stated as the driving force of a professional learning community (PLC): 1. What do we want
students to learn? 2. How will we know they have learned? 3. How will we respond when they
don’t learn? 4. How will we respond if they have already learned it? Members of a PLC work
together to explain exactly what each student must learn, then monitor each student’s learning on
a timely basis and provide systematic interventions that ensure students receive additional time
and support for learning when struggling. The PLC members also extend and enrich learning
when students master the intended outcomes (DuFour, DuFour & Eaker, 2008). The
relationships on these teams are professional, and are focused entirely on student learning.
“There is a feeling of personal responsibility from all PLC members” (Erkens et al., 2008 p.
139).
Frequent and Common Assessment
“The development of common formative assessments is an essential process that
influences so much of what teachers do on a daily basis” (Erkens et al., 2008). O’ Neill and
Conzemius concurred when teachers look at the performance data as a team, they can work
together to create more options for improvement (O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006). Common
assessments built by assessment literate teachers and collaboratively scored using rubrics
developed around district or state standards and outcomes will provide this shared foundation
(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many). O’ Neill and Conzemius (2006) noted when common
assessments, developed by teams of teachers are formative and summative, teachers get the
17
benefits of both promoting student learning as well as gaining insight into their own learning.
This tacit learning by teachers is indeed a powerful factor in creating a team culture to improve
student outcomes. The professional learning community becomes a method by which shared
values are created that enhances the positive outcomes for students. Here again, lessons from
business reinforce this concept. “What really drives the culture- its essence-is the learned,
shared, tacit assumptions on which people base their daily behavior” (Schein & Edgar 1999, p.
24).
Data From Assessment Guides Instruction
The development of common formative assessment is an essential process that influences
so much of what teachers do on a daily basis (Erkens et al., 2008). Common assessments built
by assessment literate teachers and collaboratively scored using rubrics developed around district
and state standards and outcomes, will provide a foundation for the PLC members to develop a
prescribed plan of learning for each student (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006). Garrett
(2010) described part of the professional learning community process “the common curriculum,
effective instructional strategies, and key assessments students are given are consistent from
teacher to teacher" (p. 5). PLC teachers use the data from common formative assessments to
look for patterns of strengths and weaknesses, paying attention to where students scored highest
and lowest or the classes that scored highest or lowest, and the particular items most students
answered incorrectly (Erkens et al., 2008). After determining the top areas of greatest need
shown by the data, PLC teachers use the results to guide instruction. The knowledge teachers
acquire about students progress allows them to target specific strategies for improving student
learning (Erkens et al., 2008).
Common Assessment Data Leads to Appropriate Interventions
18
“Many teachers are still teaching in ‘the dark’ (sic) without using data hoping to
hit but often missing their critical target: high performance for all students” (Erkens et al.,
2008, p. 137). The charge of a professional learning community (PLC) is to use student
data to drive instruction and intervention placement. “When used formatively,
assessments help students grow rather than merely holding them accountable for their
learning” (Stiggins & Chappuis 2008, para. 1). Not only do formative assessments help
PLC educators decide what happens with curriculum in the classroom, but these
assessments also compel prescribed intervention for students. The efforts of a
professional learning community to create common assessments and view data during
PLC meetings leads members to work together to identify students who are having
trouble and intervene early (Garrett, 2010). Concurring with Garrett “These early
interventions allow teachers to focus intensive instruction to assist students that are not
making benchmark. A PLC team works together to create systematic intervention
strategies and develop daily schedules that create opportunities for more time and support
during the regular school day (Erkens et al., 2008). During an intervention session every
teacher and aide in the building is available to work with students on pre-teaching or re-
teaching of concepts (Erkens et al., 2008). By providing more frequent in-school
intervention opportunities, the PLC team ensures that students do not “slip through the
cracks” and that those struggling with a concept or missing homework assignments do
not fall behind (Erkens et al., 2008). At the first indication students are experiencing
difficulty the PLC team ensures timely intervention that direct rather than invite students
to devote the extra time and take advantage of the additional support until they are
experiencing success (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006).
19
Teacher Benefits from Professional Learning Community Collaboration
Cooperation between professional learning community (PLC) members in meeting the
learning needs of their students will create collaborative cultures in which educators pool their
knowledge, effort, and energy to learn from one another (Erkens et al., 2008). Garrett (2010)
offered, “A lone teacher, however capable, may languish in isolation. The encouragement,
expertise, and support of colleagues in the learning community create a team even more resilient
than the strengths of its individual experts” (p. 6). The sustained open sharing culture of a PLC
not only offers support but an improved wealth of knowledge. Teachers may observe
opportunities for changes in their roles and responsibilities as they progress from working in
seclusion, to being members of a functioning PLC, to becoming teams of in-house experts
(Spanneut, 2010).
Teacher Support Each Other’s Strengths and Weaknesses
Within a professional learning community (PLC), the assurance that all students make
adequate progress falls on all team members. The entire professional learning community has
the responsibility to see that all children succeed. "The members of each team regard all the kids
as, our kids” (Garrett, 2010, p. 5). This reduces the sense of isolation some teachers have, and
increases their mutual support of each other, their collegiality. They share the workload and they
share their responsibility for student success (Boger, as cited in Garrett, 2010, p. 6). This
collective work that happens within a PLC "It's a whole different atmosphere when you, as a
teacher, walk into a room and other teachers are saying to you, 'Gee, all of our 5th-grade kids did
really well on fractions except your kids. Maybe we could help you with that. Let me show you
what I do,’ It's a different atmosphere when you have your very best teachers leading your
instructional teams” (Boger, as cited in Garrett, 2010, p. 9). The shared learning that happens
20
within a professional learning community provides educators with new strategies for delivery of
instruction and builds confidence in their teaching methods. “Working collaboratively in
curriculum teams, teachers are finding new innovative ways to develop lessons, improve their
instructional practice, and engage students in meaningful learning opportunities” (Erkens et al.,
2008, p. 97).
Student benefits from professional learning communities
Students that are the product of a school functioning as professional learning community
(PLC) benefit from a prescribed education tailored for the individual. Teachers committed to
PLC practices use frequent formative assessments to guide individual instruction for students.
“A key element of this inquiry cycle is looking at student work to better understand student
thinking and change instruction accordingly” (Nelson, LeBard, & Waters, 2010 p. 36). The
frequent examination of student work allows teachers to modify lessons that may have been
poorly designed. When paying close attention to students’ misconceptions, teachers can then
develop appropriate learning tools. This practice allows teachers to identify what specific areas
students improved in and which they still made mistakes (Nelson, LeBard, & Waters, 2010).
These collaborative investments are even more meaningful when students are involved in the
process. Sadler as cited in Erkens et al., (2008) argued “teachers must make students aware of
what the learning targets or goals are, where they are relative to those targets or goals, and what
they must do to close the gap in their performance” (p. 166). Through the practice of
professional learning communities it is apparent that teachers and students may benefit.
21
Chapter III: Methodology
This chapter will describe the overall research methodology for the study of professional
learning communities at River Heights Elementary School. This chapter describes the selection
and description of the sample, the instrumentation, data collection and analysis. Limitations
specific to this study will conclude the chapter.
Subject Selection and Description
At the time of this study River Heights Elementary had a total population of 379
students. Of which 64.6% of the students were economically disadvantaged with a
remaining 35.4% not economically disadvantaged. Within the general population of
River Heights 86.8% of the students were English proficient, 9.5% were Hmong, 0.3%
were Spanish, and 3.4% were classified as other. River Heights services students with a
varying degree of disabilities, 14.1% of the student population is labeled with some type
of disability leaving 85.9% of the students with out a disability.
Participants of this study were kindergarten and first grade students at River
Heights Elementary. Do to the somewhat transient population at River Heights several
subjects were removed from the study. Some of the subject that were removed moved
away, moved in, and in some cases moved and then came back. Since the subject’s data
could not be tracked authentically, they were removed from the sample at the time of
analysis. The researcher pulled all of the students that moved in or out from the data.
In total there were 93 kindergarten and first grade subjects assessed in this study.
The data was collected from two different groups. The experimental group consisted of
54 students. There were 29 female subjects and 25 male subjects. Data collected from
this group occurred from 2009 to 2011. This experimental group had kindergarten
22
teachers that were involved in the River Heights professional learning community and the
following year had first grade teachers that were also involved in the River Heights
professional learning community. A graduated data track that followed students’ running
record scores from the end of their kindergarten year to the end of their first grade school
year was used (see Appendix A). This experimental group was compared to a control
group of 49 students. There were 25 female subjects and 24 male subjects. These
students did not have kindergarten and first grade teachers participating in a professional
learning community at River Heights. The same graduated track of these student running
record scores from the end of their kindergarten year of 2008 to the end of their first
grade year in 2009 was collected (see Appendix A). Throughout this study 93 total
subjects were assessed. These 93 students matriculated through kindergarten and first
grade. Kindergarten and first grade students that left or entered River Heights from the
end of their kindergarten school year to the end of the first grade year were not included
as part of the population of this study.
Instrumentation
The final year-end running record reports of both groups was used (see Appendix A).
The subjects were assessed in September, January and May. In order to show progress from year
to year within the control group and the experimental group, the May year-end data results were
compared. Running record assessments from the Fountas and Pinnell Guided Reading System
assessment kit were used. The running record assessment displayed data on the student’s
fluency, accuracy, and comprehension in reading (see Appendix B). The Fountas and Pinnell
assessment kit is the assessment tool that all elementary schools within the Menomonie School
District use to identify a student’s reading behaviors and level of reading. This assessment kit
23
has a range of assessments from level A to level Z. Level A through level C are considered
kindergarten levels and level C through I are considered first grade levels. Typical protocol was
followed, and before administering the assessment the classroom teacher selected a reading level
that she believed her student would find success. The child was then allowed the choice within
that reading level of a fiction or a non-fiction book. The 4 kindergarten and 4 first grade teachers
implementing the running record assessments were all experienced in using the Fountas and
Pinnell Guided Reading System’s assessment kit. The classroom teacher administered the
assessment to each subject individually. The running record assessment began with the teacher
introducing the book that the subject was to read. After the introduction the student began
reading aloud and the teacher recorded the subject’s reading on an assessment recording form.
The teacher recorded the student’s accuracy with the text by tracking the errors and self-
corrections on the running record form (see Appendix C).
As the student read the teacher listened for fluency and dependent on how the student
sounded the teacher marked a score on the running record form. The fluency scoring scale has a
range of 0 to 3. The running record assessment tool provided the teacher with a fluency scoring
key that defined the student’s score. A fluency score of zero indicated that the student primarily
read word-by-word with irregular pausing and no attention to punctuation; a student with a score
of one demonstrated primarily slow reading in two to three word phrases with almost no
expressive interpretation or pausing at punctuation; a score of two displayed that the student read
in three and four word phrases that were some what smooth with understanding of expression
and punctuation; a fluency score of three confirmed the student read smoothly in larger phrases
with appropriate attention to expression and punctuation.
24
At the conclusion of the running record assessment the teacher asked the student a series
of comprehension questions to determine the subjects level of understanding. Some examples of
typical comprehension questions that were used are; a question about the setting, the main
characters, the problem within the story, the main idea, or questions regarding the sequence of
the story. The comprehension responses were scored on a scale from 0 to 7. Students with a
score of zero to three points demonstrated unsatisfactory comprehension, a score of four verified
limited comprehension, a five indicated satisfactory comprehension, and a score of six to seven
confirmed an excellent comprehension score. The running record recording form provided the
teacher with the comprehension questions and examples of student responses as an evaluation
guide for the teacher. Even with student response examples the comprehension assessment
portion of the running record is somewhat subjective. At the completion of the comprehension
portion of the assessment the teacher tallied the score.
Data Collection Procedures
Each kindergarten and first grade teacher administered running records during the months
of September, January and May. For the purpose of this study only the May running records
were used given that the intent of the data collection within this study was to find if students
obtained the year-end benchmark expectation of a proficient score. The running record
assessment delineates the students’ reading behaviors: accuracy, fluency, and comprehension.
The running record assessments are leveled A through Z and geared toward the individual
student’s current reading level. A student scoring 95% or higher on the running record
assessment is considered proficient at that reading level. A student scoring 100% was given the
following level assessment. The 4 kindergarten and 4 first grade teachers implementing the
25
running record assessments were all experienced in using the Fountas and Pinnell Guided
Reading System’s assessment kit.
Each teacher within this study performed the assessment correspondingly. The teacher
sat with an individual student in a quiet place within the classroom for the assessment. The
students were very comfortable completing the assessment with their teacher since the
assessment tool was used often throughout the school year. The students were asked to read
aloud a book selected from the Fountas and Pinnell Guided Reading System’s assessment kit by
the teacher. As the students read the teacher recorded reading behaviors. Marking when the
subject read the text correctly, self corrected, asked for the word, or made an error. When the
students finished reading they then answered a series of questions based on what they read. The
testing time varied in length from 10 to 20 minutes depending on the level of the book and the
skill level of the student. The kindergarten and first grade teachers individually loaded this data
onto Menomonie School District’s Link for Learning database. The 2008-2011 data from both
the experimental group which was made up of a total of 54 students with 29 female subjects and
25 male subjects and control group of 49 students with 25 female subjects and 24 male subjects
was collected by the researcher.
Data Analysis
The average scores derived from the year-end running record scores of both the
experimental and control group were compared to determine if the group taught by professional
learning community teachers had significantly higher reading scores. Since there are two
groups, a comparison was used to determine the significance of the difference between the two
groups. A significance level of year-end reading level benchmark scores was set by the school
district. The benchmark targets were also compared. The kindergarten end of year benchmark is
26
level C and the first grade end of year benchmark is level I. The experimental and control
groups running record reading scores were calculated to determine the critical difference (see
Appendix A).
Limitations
There was a systematic weakness in this study in that four different kindergarten teachers
and four different first grade teachers implemented the assessment. Each teacher has received
similar training but the varied levels of experience were noted. Within the population of eight
teachers, years of teaching experience varied from as little as three years to as many as 32. Level
of education is another variable affecting the teacher population. Within the population of eight
teachers three of the teachers had received master degrees. The teacher population had received
a wide range of professional development training as well. Other variables affecting the students
that were difficult to diagnose were considered as well: diverse testing environments, the
student’s nutrition, and the amount of sleep the student received prior to testing.
27
Chapter IV: Results
The purpose of this study was to determine if the group of students taught by
professional learning community teachers had significantly higher reading scores than those
taught by teachers not participating in professional learning communities. The research design
was descriptive and an experimental methodology was used to collect data on the variables.
The subjects of this study were kindergarten students between the ages of five and six,
and first grade students between the ages of six and seven at River Heights Elementary School in
Menomonie. Wisconsin. A total of 93 subjects participated in this study, 54 of which were
female and 49 of which were male. The control group consisted of 49 students of which 25 were
female and 24 were male. The experimental group consisted of 54 students of which 29 were
female and 25 were male. The subject’s end of year reading scores after kindergarten and first
grade were gathered. The May year-end first grade running record assessment scores were
analyzed for this study.
Item Analysis
The research question in this study addressed the effect of professional learning
community teaching practices on student reading levels. Reading levels were measured by a
proficient score of 95% or higher in accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. Reading levels were
assessed using the Fountas and Pinnell Guided Reading System assessment kit. In order for a
student to obtain a benchmark score, level I was required.
Reading achievement levels were categorized by; beginning, developing, proficient, and
advanced proficient. Students receiving a beginning achievement score were reading at levels A
through D. The developing scores were students that read within levels E through H. While
28
students scoring in the proficient category achieved level I and students that received an
advanced proficient score read text that was level J or higher.
The year-end May data showing the number of students in each category for the two groups is
displayed in Table 1.
Four Achievement Levels Control Group 49
Number Percent
Experimental Group 54
Number Percent
Beginning 3 6 % 2 4%
Developing 9 18 % 7 13%
Proficient 13 26% 10 18%
Advanced proficient 24 49% 35 65 %
Table 1 displays the percent for each group per level of achievement. The four achievement
levels represented on Table 1 were selected since the achievement levels are represented on the
Menomonie School District’s report card. Within the control group three subjects scored in the
beginning achievement level representing 6% of the total control group population. In the
experimental group two subjects scored in the beginning achievement level representing 4% of
the total experimental group population. Developing achievement scores with in the control
group show nine students representing 18% of the population and in the experimental group
seven students represent 13% of the population. With in the control group 13 students scored
proficient signifying 26% of the population and in the experimental group 10 subjects scored in
the proficient achievement category representing 18% of the population. The 24 students in the
control group that achieved the advanced proficient level represented 49% of the population of
the control group. The 35 students in the experimental group that received the advanced
proficient level represent 65% of the population in that group. The 24 students in the control
29
group that achieved the advanced proficient level represented 49% of the population of the
control group.
It is also interesting to note that 37 of the 49 students in the control group received either
a proficient or advanced proficient level. These two categories comprise 75% of the total control
group population. The experimental group had 45 of the 54 students in either the proficient or
advanced proficient level. These two categories comprise 83% of the total experimental group
population. It is also interesting to note the greatest difference in the percent of students at a
particular achievement level was the advanced proficient level. The control group had 49% of its
population in the advanced proficient category while the experimental group had 65%. This is a
difference of 16%.
30
Chapter V: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine if the group of students taught by professional
learning community teachers had significantly higher reading scores than those taught by
teachers not participating in professional learning communities. The underlying theme of the
research question addressed by this study was to determine if the implementation of professional
learning communities would generate students who could achieve benchmark reading level
scores of proficient or advanced proficient.
The basic design of this study was descriptive and an experimental methodology was
used to collect data on each of the subjects. The subjects for this study were 93 kindergarten and
first grade students at River Heights Elementary in Menomonie, Wisconsin. The year-end May
running record reading scores were a variable. This variable was chosen since reading is the
foundation for much of the learning that happens in a typical school day. The variable selected is
the preferred assessment of the Menomonie School District. The benchmark reading level
variable was examined to determine if there was an increase, decrease, or if the students stayed
the same in classrooms where teachers were participating in professional learning communities.
Performing the research this way provided an in depth analysis of the effect professional learning
communities have on student reading scores.
The running record assessment tool used in this study was from the Fountas and Pinnell
Guided Reading System assessment kit. The running record assessment displayed data on the
student’s fluency, accuracy, and comprehension. The four kindergarten and four first grade
teachers administered the assessment to each subject individually. After an introduction, the
student began reading aloud and as the teacher listened for fluency she also recorded the
subject’s reading errors and self-corrections on an assessment recording form. At the conclusion
31
of the running record assessment the teacher asked the student a series of comprehension
questions to determine the subject’s level of understanding.
Limitations
There was a systematic weakness in this study in that four different kindergarten teachers
and four different first grade teachers with various teaching backgrounds, years of experience,
and levels of education implemented the assessment. Each teacher has received similar training
but the varied levels of experience were noted. Other variables affecting the students that were
difficult to control were considered these include: diverse testing environments, the student’s
nutrition, and the amount of sleep the student received prior to testing.
Conclusion
The question of this study asked what effect professional learning communities have on
students reading performance. The results of this study were encouraging to the researcher
because of the difference between the proficient scores and the advanced proficient scores. The
data from the running record assessments indicated that the implementation of professional
learning communities and the work that happens within them, might have a positive affect on
student reading scores. Menomonie School District’s benchmark goal is for all students to attain
a proficient score. The experimental group of students learning in classrooms where professional
learning communities worked to advance students had 83% or 45 of the 54 students scoring
proficient or advanced proficient. In other words, 83% of the experimental group achieved year-
end benchmark. However, the data showed that 65% of the students within the experimental
group attained advanced proficient while 49% of the control group achieved this level. This is
significant because the other three levels of assessment did not have as large of a marginal
difference. Therefore, the researcher concludes that professional learning communities have a
32
significant impact upon the advanced proficient level of reading. However, it is highly probable
that professional learning community practices have an even greater impact on the advanced
proficient level. The data suggests that there are less significant differences within the
beginning, developing, and proficient groups. It is less likely that professional learning
communities have an impact on students in
Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations were
determined:
1. Execute an action research study to determine teacher’s view of professional learning
communities.
2. Replicate this study at other sites to see if this study aligns with the researchers findings.
3. Survey other past and current PLC sites to determine if their data is congruent with the
data sited in this study.
4. Analyze classroom teachers that have been part of professional learning communities and
those that have not been part of these communities within the same school districts to
validate that there are no significant differences between these two populations.
5. Implement the proven strategies deployed in professional learning communities at a state
and national level to improve reading scores at the advanced proficient level.
6. Conduct some qualitative research with professional learning community teachers and
those that do not practice professional learning community efforts to further corroborate
this paper’s research findings.
33
References
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Professional learning communities at work.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Karhanek, G. (2004). What ever it takes.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree
Press.
Erkens, C., Jakici, C., Jessie, L. G., King, D., Kramer, S. V., Many, T.W., Ranells, M.,
Rose, A.B., Sparks, S. K., Twadell, E. (2008). The collaborative teacher.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Fountas, I. & Pinnell, G. (1996). Guided Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Garrett, K. (2010). Professional Learning Communities Allow a Transformational
Culture to Take Root. Education Digest, 76(2), 4.
Hamos, J. E., Bergin, K. B., Maki, D. P., Perez, L. C., Prival, J. T., Rainey, D. Y., & ...
VanderPutten, E. (2009). Opening the Classroom Door: Professional Learning
Communities In the Math and Science Partnership Program. Science Educator,
18(2), 14-24.
Howell, R., Patton, S., & Deiotte, M. (2008). Understanding response to intervention.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press
Katzenbach, J. & Smith, D. (1993). The wisdom of teams. New York, NY: McKinsey &
Co Company, Inc.
Lieberman, A., & Mace, D. (2009). The role of 'accomplished teachers' in professional
34
learning communities: uncovering practice and enabling leadership. Teachers &
Teaching, 15(4), 459-470.
Lujan, N., & Day, B. (2009). Professional Learning Communities: Overcoming the
Roadblocks. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 76(2), 10-17.
Lunenburg, F. (2010). Creating a professional learning community. National Forum of
Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 27(4), 1-7.
Mellard, D. F. & Johnson, E. (2008). RTI practioner’s guide to implementing response to
intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Nelson, T., LeBard, L., & Waters, C. (2010). How to Create a Professional Learning
Community. Science & Children, 47(9), 36-40.
O’Neill, J. & Conzemius, A. (2006). The power of smart goals. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.
Schein, E. (1999). The corporate culture survival guide. San Fransisco, CA: Josey-Base
Inc.
Spanneut, G. (2010). Professional learning communities, principals, and collegial
conversations. Kappa Delta Pi Record, spring, 100-103.
Stiggins, R, & Chappuis , J., (2008). Enhancing student learning: Create profound
achievement gains through formative assessments. District Administration.
35
Appendix A: Subjects End of Year Reading Level
Control Group (49) Experimental Group (54)
Identification Number May Reading
Level Identification number May Reading
Level
27739 R 31242 J
30022 I 33418 G
30864 N 32803 P
30813 D 32741 I
31561 L 27743 K
30825 H 32857 K
28518 I 32818 L
32785 R 27806 K
32119 M 33384 K
32437 I 32360 O
32134 G 28693 M
28404 N 34939 I
32684 R 32836 K
32216 J 33854 N
29561 I 28660 C
33360 J 34788 K
25704 J 32869 V
32157 M 27714 K
28093 J 34950 G
28280 G 32045 I
33347 I 35413 K
28439 A 32136 G
33344 I 27694 M
31978 P 33153 O
33067 I 34269 K
31955 K 27408 M
32191 L 34809 L
33175 I 34031 R
28536 A 27577 K
31944 I 33381 J
30881 Q 35016 Q
27576 N 33001 K
31990 K 30429 Q
33327 I 33012 I
26529 K 32604 H
33253 J 30598 I
32001 J 30599 J
25407 M 30597 K
30637 P 32005 L
30660 G 34996 J
31991 H 33872 M
32789 I 32412 I
31491 H 30562 I
36
26027 I 33102 J
27713 E 30562 I
28824 L 33123 F
28634 I 33131 I
32056 G 30477 O
27223 F 33813 C
33045 M
33718 M
35289 H
33033 I
32058 F
37
Appendix B: Running Record Assessment
~ • LEVEL H • NON~ Retording Form
Stud" t JL-_________ -----'L Grade _ _ _ Date -,,5,,--'2='Z--'-l1l _ _ Teacher _______________ _ School _J£J:l-\L_----,,,_=? '-.-- --
Recording Form Part One: Oral Reading
Pl~(e the book in front of the student. Read the title and introduction.
Introduction: There are many kinds of trucks and they do important jobs. Read to find oul about the different kinds of trucks and the jobs they do.
SOvtces 0/ 1nformation Used
E SC Page Text Trucks Level H, RW: 188 E se
M S V M S V
(;g v v - ~ -
2 trucks are on the road.
"" .....- ~ v -They are gOing to many
cI ,-.fA' ./ ./ different places.
,/" '-" 0/ .... v ./ They are going t o do many
't -wi j .{ important JO s .
.,,- -- ./ --- ./ 4 This is a fire truck.
v L.-- c.-- ...-Fire trucks help put out fire s.
v ~ -' -~ 0 ."':J '-""" This truck has a long hose
v .....- - ~ - ---that shoots water on the fire .
Subtotal I- ~
38
Recording Form
~
~
}. Part One: Oral Reading continued .. "
I l 1 i , • • I
Page
6
8
Text
~ ~ ~ -n;'is truck picks up trash .
./ -\fv.cJ< be.; b.-ack"! '" 0/ The trash goes In the back J' .....- ~
of the truck.
1./ ./ C rv~l,-,/ ...- .... The truck crus es the trash
v ./ V' SI'1-,d-\-/ to make it smaller.
'-'" ~ -Then the truck
~ries J' v V the trash away.
.-- ~ ./ c-e: ,./" This is a mail truck.
'" .; 0/ V .f/lpp"d It picks up mal~ ./ <./ ~_st -+Y<d<ISc-
from the post office_
./ v- '"" ...---~ .,-
Then the truck carries the mail ./
----V
all over town.
Ttudcs • LMl. H • N!lNf1CT1ON
, SC , SC
M S V M S V
I
\
SO t.A nd ./
I
Subtotal ~
Foontos & PinneO 8enchmak AssewneIll5ystem I
39
Trucks • lEvEL H • NONFlCl10N
Part One: Oral Reading continued
Page Text
./ ~ ./ ~ ~ ./ 10 This big truck is a snowplow.
v fut.At-S V v
(-~.o.-J~U~ It ushes the snow
,/ v 51 d I~"....- ".. to the side of the road. '-- --"
./ v C/ V Then big trucks come ../"'
J?i,gIOS.Jl..1 f'tI e-o/' v- I/'
~ to carry the
- --of snow away.
\/ ..... .,... pi c..A-w Le.-12 This truck carnes
V Qo((lS- v- ......... all kinds of food .
n l·e ... - - v'
truck picks up corn ,/' ",- .-at the farm .
Tht6" J ./ I I/' it ta/, the corn
V ,/ to the market.
Fountas & Pinnell Benchmotk Assesmenl SyStem ,
, S(
} I I
I
I
Subtotal l? 12
Rt(ording Form
Sources of InforTMtion Us~ , SC
M S V M S V
I ] , & 1
j u
i $
~ •
40
Recording Form
~ ~ Part One: Oral Reading continued ~.
3' ~
Page Text
V' ~ ~ -14 This IS an Ice - -cream truck.
~ '--- ~ / ./ ./ ~
The Ice cream truck plays a song.
c.~ '.-1-/ \'It .. ./ 6 . '''3 Children hear the so'n't1
V'" '" '-" ....... "- --and run to get ice cream .
v J(,cd<:, .;' .." ., ., ~ -16 All kinds of trucks are on the road.
V Y" >/ fof Is'- v'" Some trucks are o~ w~'_ ./7 .,/ -/ V' And some trucks are for play. (2.
IrucJtS • LEVU n • NUNHUIUN
SOUrcts of Infl)nTlalion UStd , S( , S(
M S V M S V
12
I
)
Subtotal 3 1 Tolal
., ~ -'
Foontas & Pinnell Benchmork Asse5smenl System 1
top related